Talk:Neretva

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Rivers (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Neretva is part of the WikiProject Bosnia and Herzegovina, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon Neretva is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Uniqueness, beauty, diversity[edit]

My edit summary got cut off, but what I was trying to say about my edit is that beauty is subjective and, under WP:NPOV, isn't an attribute that can be expressed as fact in a Wikipedia article. If there are reliable sources (WP:RS) that make it clear that the river is known by many for its beauty, it can be stated that people consider it to be so. As for uniqueness: this is not the only beautiful or diverse river in the world, so calling the Neretva unique for having these qualities is simply false. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just replaced the previously restored uniqueness reference. As I wrote in my edit summary, the fact that someone else fallaciously used the word "unique" doesn't mean that it's factually unique. Yes, it may be unique in the sense that, as Santasa99 said to me, every person is unique, but in that sense, it isn't then worth mentioning. In that case, every article on every river, every country, every forest, every city, and every person could mention that the topic was "unique", but then there wouldn't be any point in mentioning it; it would be like writing somewhere, in every biographical article, "X has unique fingerprints", as though that were interesting. There isn't any point in saying something's unique unless it's unique in the sense that it's different from everything else in some remarkable way. —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bosnian[edit]

There are many "Bosnian language" references in the text. I suggest that we dual-script them to Cyrillic too, and change the language name to BCS or Serbo-Croatian, because Bosnian is not the only official language of Bosnia and Herzegovina. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 00:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

---Bosnian, Sernian and Croatian are the official languages in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Serbo-Croatian on the other hand, is not.(talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:01, 23 August 2010 (UTC).

Dam Neutrality[edit]

The section on the river's dams appear to be a critique of the environmental effects of the dams rather than a description of them. This violates WP:NPOV. While it is reasonable to mention the detrimental environmental effects, such weight is not needed. For starters, the section is entitled "Dam Problems" as opposed to, say "Dam Situation" Alexandicity (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

NPOV tag[edit]

In fact, the entire article suffers from POV language, and I've noted a few such phrases in my edit summary--"still enjoy the unique atmosphere" "the infamous project" "This is a cunning plan of engineers". It's pretty obvious that some editors are greatly interested in the protection of this river (and good luck to them), but it goes at the expense of the article's neutrality. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

--This whole section needs to be reworked by someone knowledgeable of the region. It has an obvious tone and message which violates a number of Wiki "rules". Plus it was written by someone who has English as a second language and it shows. I also don't think the biggest section of an article dealing with a regionally important river system should be dedicated to the "evils" of dams and energy companies. Indeed, the whole article seems to be riddled with a tone that glorifies the region and its people. There's nothing wrong with having local pride but such a tone really isn't meant for an encyclopedia and isn't consistent with neutrality or with the way any educational article should be written. I'm going to try to fix what I can but being that I live over 5,000 miles from the area I can't do much. Coinmanj (talk) 21:20, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Photos[edit]

Please see File:NERETVA RIVER GORGE BRIDGES.jpg and File:NERETVA RIVER BRIDGES, BOSNIA.jpg as these may be worth including in the article. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 03:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)